By Stephen Russell-Lacy.
This is the 6th script of a series of 6 podcasts asking how we can link ourselves with love and light: one of the great questions of life. Previously I have looked at the Swedenborgian idea of the Lord as an image of universal love and light. Now I compare this idea with some Christian teaching of the mainstream churches.
Some older ideas of sin
Sometimes people yearn for God’s help but do not ask for it because they believe they deserve only divine judgment. This is because they have picked up the idea of a judgmental deity for human sin. This orthodox line of Christian thought stems from Augustine and Luther. Those thinkers had the notion of our essential sinfulness for which we should be ashamed and feel condemned. This idea of ‘original sin’ is that humanity is basically evil since Adam’s fall.
So for them God the Father seems like a rather punitive figure who wants retribution for the sinful behaviour of humankind. Consequently, God the Son gets punished in our place. Approaching God can thus be hindered by a sense of shame and fear. If you feel unworthy of God’s love because of this Christian notion of ‘sin’, you may be put off prayer.
Emanuel Swedenborg on sin
The Swedenborgian view is that, although it is true we have selfish tendencies, we needn’t beat ourselves up because of them. We also have good tendencies. What counts is what we do with these.
William Bruce a Swedenborgian points out that there are many selfish suggestions and impure images that intrude into our minds from what we read, and hear, and see, and from what is already in the memory. Their entering the thought does not corrupt us. It gives us the opportunity of discovering their character, of ascertaining whether we like or dislike them, of knowing ourselves, and exercising self-denial, if we are disposed to do so. What really matters is the way we choose between them.
“What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (Matt 15:11)
Feeling guilt-ridden self-abasement because of a sense of condemnation stops us being kind to ourselves. Even today many church goers feel guilty about self-kindness because they suppose this to be undeserved and somehow the opposite of loving the neighbour. However, if we can’t be kind to ourselves how can we possibly expect to feel we deserve help for our problems?
Literal understanding of Holy Trinity
When the Christian Church was in its infancy, there had been no thought of three individual people in the Deity. This was while the Apostles lived and preached repentance throughout the world. Then over the centuries, although proclaiming one God with their lips, for some Christians there were three gods in the thoughts of their mind: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christian churches since the sixth century explicitly state three individuals of the Trinity. And the vestige of this assumption still can be found today in the mainstream churches.
When we have an idea of the One, there is an intuition of unity. I’m thinking of a unity of love and light. In other words this is distinguishable oneness: an apparent paradox. The theologian John Hick says that the transcendent absolute, which cannot be put into words, is in some sense One. Similarly, basic to the philosophy of Plotinus and Neo-Platonism, Soul and Intelligence come from the One.
Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. Nevertheless, many Hindus accept that the individual divinities are expressions or representations of a single ultimate spiritual power. The Islamic religion is particularly adamant about the oneness of Allah.
Christian theologians themselves often admit they have found it impossible to come up with a persuasive and rational explanation for three divine Beings. Consequently, they call this a mystery. However, this a mystery that is an obstacle for people these days who won’t believe something they don’t understand.
Swedenborg on Divine Trinity
I’m attracted to the view that the biblical narrative of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is a metaphor. Understanding this literally as three divine individuals smacks of polytheism. Instead, I would suggest we think of three essential dimensions of one Human Divinity, whom Swedenborg called the Lord. After all there are arguably three aspects to me: my higher self, my body and my activity. Accordingly, each of the divine figures referred to in the Gospels correspond to a similar aspect of the one divinity.
So, as I understand it, the Father stands for the inmost essence of love we cannot fully fathom. Is this idea similar to the Hindu idea of Brahman as unknowable source?
I would suggest that the Son represents the light about love which to some extent illuminates our understanding and with whom we can humanly relate. Is this like the Hindu Krishna?
And to my way of thinking the Holy Spirit stands for the power of love to do good which can empower our lives. Is there something in common here with the Hindu concept of atman as imminent indwelling Spirit.
So I would like to speak of the one Lord, within whom are these three aspects, represented by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Old assumptions about the relevance of religious belief
When religious belief is dogmatic it can lead to conflict and schism. The Swedenborgian view is that all people, regardless of their religious culture, can potentially find a heavenly state of mind. In other words you don’t have to believe in and belong to one specific faith to be saved from unhappiness and vice. Instead, what matters is whether we lead our lives in line with our knowledge of love and light. What we believe can usefully guide us towards, rather than determine, our judgment and final destiny.
Copyright 2021 Stephen Russell-Lacy
Author of Heart, Head & Hands Swedenborg’s perspective on emotional problems
